ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2025
A service evaluation following the implementation of computer guided consultation software to support primary care reviews for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the impact of using a Clinical Decision Support System software in the form of a computer-guided consultation (CGC) when conducting Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) reviews in primary care. 5221 patients on the COPD register underwent CGC review with 21.1% found not to have COPD. Previously unrecognised cardiac disease was highlighted by the CGC in 7% of confirmed COPD cases. CGC review resulted in the number of patients possessing a self-management plan rising from 62-85%. 13% were found to have sub-optimal inhaler technique during CGC review with the CGC prompting correction in all cases. Only 26% of patients identified by the CGC as appropriate for Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) referral had previously attended a PR program. The integration of technology in the form of clinical decision support system software results in greater implementation of guideline-level care representing a scalable solution when performing COPD reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.